This thread was originally titled, "Incredible development in the $612,000 Transcon Goodge run, currently ongoing" but the new title is more descriptive. The description of the run is here.
Have checked Nedd, his data is absolutely fine, right the way through. You've pointed me to a day with 4 hours worth of breaks [11 moving, out there 15] and an enormous 500 metre descent in the second half. His graph is as pure as it gets, after some crazy spiking early, a very gentle rise for the rest of the run.
Nedd is a much better runner than WG, and I compare WG with WG, not others. This is a runner with one of the highest HRs around. Not many run the marathon at 170. Checked a friend - he was 163, but ran a 2:22, bit different to 3:05 territory.
Its a relatively simple sentence construct. the comma seperates out the posited question, and the positive after indicates the expected answer.
There arent two negatives, unless you think that 'know' is a negative?
Finally you claim to be a lawyer but dont understand what a democracy is? A democracy has nothing to do with justice systems. A democracy is simply a government where supreme executive power stems from a mandate from the masses (as opposed to farcical aquatic ceremonies). A feature of many democracies is that the legislative arm and the judicial arm are separated - which makes your statement, particularly as a us lawyer, i assume, supremely embarrassing for you.
Innocent until proven guilty applies to criminal law. WG is not in criminal court. The obvious historical legal analogy is roman law which has stated; 'proof is on he who asserts'.
In such cases the framework of roman law as above or its modern equivalent is clearly more relevant than the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. And this is because one provides society safety against sanction (jail / fine etc), the other provides society protection against unfair reward.
Thank you sooooooo much for the grammar and history lessons. Truly helpful with this discussion...
a) Not a lawyer...oh wait, I better make that grammatically proper: I am not a lawyer...never said I was. In an earlier post, someone claimed that myself and another poster who are questioning all of the 'death by numbers' would let a murder go as the sheriff of the town because there wasn't evidence. So, I ran with that story line. I guess if you followed along, you might presume that I'm a sheriff.
Now, sticking with your Roman history lesson that 'proof is on he who asserts' is just another way of saying "I don't trust anything you do unless you prove it to be correct." Well, I believe that is a far too pessimistic approach on life. Why not a little faith in people? Why not believe unless PROVEN to be false. Just because there have been 1 or 2 bad apples in the multi-day endurance community does not mean that everyone should be presumed to be cheating in some way.
Just to make sure you understand...not a lawyer...not a sheriff. I'm just someone who looks for the positive rather that immediately jumped to the negative (or in this case, let's find some way to prove WG is faking this run).
Agree with all of that, I did try to point this out to him earlier (less eloquently). Tends to make you wonder how he is going to react if all his bluster and bravado in support of this run turns out to be another Scott Dominguez.
You know, , IF something comes out that would make me realize that this is false, I'll immediately be on here saying that I was wrong. But, my belief that IF/WHEN it is shown that this run is legit, I highly doubt the 20 or so people on here that have been calling WG and RG frauds/fakes/cheaters/not real runners/etc will come back on here and say they were wrong. I have asked in multiple posts to if he will publicly say he was wrong with the same veracity that he has attempted to scream from the rooftops about WG being a fraud, and he has never once stated that he would. Will you, ? Will the rest of the doubters?
Hi all,here's an update on another thread about the British runner William Goodge doing Transcon at the moment and some worrying irregularities.Namely that he runs at 150-170bpm in the first two days of his multidayers, colla...
Hi all,here's an update on another thread about the British runner William Goodge doing Transcon at the moment and some worrying irregularities.Namely that he runs at 150-170bpm in the first two days of his multidayers, colla...
Hi all,here's an update on another thread about the British runner William Goodge doing Transcon at the moment and some worrying irregularities.Namely that he runs at 150-170bpm in the first two days of his multidayers, colla...
You know, , IF something comes out that would make me realize that this is false, I'll immediately be on here saying that I was wrong. But, my belief that IF/WHEN it is shown that this run is legit, I highly doubt the 20 or so people on here that have been calling WG and RG frauds/fakes/cheaters/not real runners/etc will come back on here and say they were wrong. I have asked in multiple posts to if he will publicly say he was wrong with the same veracity that he has attempted to scream from the rooftops about WG being a fraud, and he has never once stated that he would. Will you, ? Will the rest of the doubters?
Well we will be waiting, by the way if you are interested you could examine my posts and you will find out that I have made no assertions I don't have evidence for. Instead I have remarked on the many logical failings about what evidence looks like and who has the burden. You seem to find it irrelevant that we are not in court, this is really odd because as I pointed out, none of us in real life decide what we think about something as if we are in court.
Fair enough point WC, and thanks for the updated analysis. As this goes on and the finish line for WG draws ever closer, how do you see this ending/unfolding? Do we think we will ever get to the bottom of it? The truth? Will it just be another event in WGs chamber? I am torn between his suspect HR data and the integrity of at least some of his crew and the fact that so far, how he has knocked out so many ridiculously low HR miles has not been discovered/proved.
Now, sticking with your Roman history lesson that 'proof is on he who asserts' is just another way of saying "I don't trust anything you do unless you prove it to be correct." Well, I believe that is a far too pessimistic approach on life. Why not a little faith in people? Why not believe unless PROVEN to be false. Just because there have been 1 or 2 bad apples in the multi-day endurance community does not mean that everyone should be presumed to be cheating in some way.
Do you leave your home doors unlocked when you’re not there? If you lock your doors, why not a little faith in people?
Well we will be waiting, by the way if you are interested you could examine my posts and you will find out that I have made no assertions I don't have evidence for. Instead I have remarked on the many logical failings about what evidence looks like and who has the burden. You seem to find it irrelevant that we are not in court, this is really odd because as I pointed out, none of us in real life decide what we think about something as if we are in court.
Accusations are not evidence.
No, we are not in court. We are in life. You are absolutely correct, things are decided by what we think not what can be proven. I have simply used the legal analogies and "show me the proof" statements in the same exclamatory way that WC has stated "never in history" and "no pulse" and "impossible" I know what I saw...I know what I've been following...I know how to read people. So, it is my belief that WG is doing this. I am not relying on someone else's opinions and self-created witch hunt to make my decision.
Fair enough point WC, and thanks for the updated analysis. As this goes on and the finish line for WG draws ever closer, how do you see this ending/unfolding? Do we think we will ever get to the bottom of it? The truth? Will it just be another event in WGs chamber? I am torn between his suspect HR data and the integrity of at least some of his crew and the fact that so far, how he has knocked out so many ridiculously low HR miles has not been discovered/proved.
Even though I like to make fun, I would put myself at 60/40. I believe there is a 60% chance he is running it legit and 40% the runs are being cheated. I will gladly come back to say I was wrong to question him running it legit if some concrete proof came out. But I won't apologize for asserting that he is using the run to sell snake oil.
By the way, he has two watches when he runs. The data on that 2nd watch might either prove his claims of legit running or perhaps prove cheating. It will be interesting to see how willing he is to share all his data freely.
Do you leave your home doors unlocked when you’re not there? If you lock your doors, why not a little faith in people?
Fair point. I don't believe everyone is good, just as I don't believe everyone is bad.
Do you believe every stat put in front of you? Do you believe every negative statement said about you or others? Do you believe people are lying unless they prove to you they aren't?
Why don't you have a little faith as well my friend?
Even though I like to make fun, I would put myself at 60/40. I believe there is a 60% chance he is running it legit and 40% the runs are being cheated. I will gladly come back to say I was wrong to question him running it legit if some concrete proof came out. But I won't apologize for asserting that he is using the run to sell snake oil.
By the way, he has two watches when he runs. The data on that 2nd watch might either prove his claims of legit running or perhaps prove cheating. It will be interesting to see how willing he is to share all his data freely.
FYI, that second watch is a Whoop device...another one of those dang sponsors. In any of the videos I've seen (along with when I ran with him) have I seen that off of his arm. From what I've read on that device, the amount of data on one's biometrics is immense. I have to believe they will be doing an analysis of his data. Just to be clear, what's the snake oil he's selling? Is it NuCalm, Puresport, Whoop?
Golly gee, willvlc, you've beaten me into submission. I guess I'll slither into a hole and cry myself to sleep...
Your choice of people is rather odd...Napoleon? Really?
For a world-class statistician that you are, your analysis of the number of people is rather surprising. 200+ have commented...how many of those are registered? I vaguely remember a post on here where you said you were DONE posting on here because of all of the non-registered users commenting on your "analysis". As you well know, you can come on here unregistered with any username you want and then come back on again with a different u/n. So there you go again trying to use numbers to support your narrative. Most of those that still support WG, who is just a guy on a run -- not a superhero, God, definitely not Napoleon, have just dropped off of here because any thoughts beyond those supporting your opinion have gone on deaf ears. And, if you are using the arrows as your basis of support, you are more into social media than most...Do you need some likes to feel good about yourself?
I love pure, honest, running just as you do. There's a lake that I've run around more than 200+ different runs and there is a section where you can take short cut via a dirt path. I've never taken it because to me that would be "cheating" the course. I ALSO believe in not tearing someone down for the sake of it. I only came into this debate because of comments were made calling this race a fake practically from the beginning. You were part of that incitement from the start. Just because he doesn't slog the way you think he should during multi-day events...just because he has a support crew...just because he has sponsors...just because he has followers on social...just because he isn't built the way you think multi-dayers should be built...just because he hasn't run a 3 hr marathon (what the heck does that have to do with multi-day events?)...just because he hasn't joined a club (has every mutli-dayer joined a running club?).
Misdirection...No, it is re-direction to the possibility of this being real. It is re-direction to not slandering someone because they aren't doing it the way YOU think it should be done. It is re-direction to logic. Aren't you the one doing the misdirecting? Anytime someone has brought up a counter argument to yours, you dismiss it because it doesn't fit your narrative. Keep calling me out...that's fine. You aren't going to bully me away from asking questions and challenging your premises. All of the wacky math you can throw against the wall isn't going to stop that. I am willing to put myself out there because I believe it is not right to just try to beat someone down because you don't like how they're doing it.
But, as I said in an earlier post, if I am proven wrong, with actual analysis by qualified professionals, then I will state I'm wrong. Will you? (This is probably the 10th time I've asked this question of you and I've yet to get an answer without a 'but' at the end. Only a one word answer is needed).
We won't need to do too much more analysis from here on in. He can either run it clean, in which case we'll know for all sorts of reasons, or he'll run it dirty, which we'll also know. He hasn't remotely resembled clean in this last fortnight, it's all been completely and utterly mad. But they're making the punt that having Insta on your side is more valuable than the world's extremely knowledgeable running community. In some ways, they may be right [150k vs 15k] but it'll only take one sponsor to get cold feet, or one article to appear in the media and things could get out of control very quickly.
And as for a full on neutral enquiry by experts, that'd be big trouble too. They clearly want to be picked up by a streaming giant, but one has already had me on camera for an hour talking about this, and they have seen RBs infamous 4.5 minute rant to me when I was there, where he totally lost the plot. It has been described as incredibly uncomfortable viewing.
They are basing their entire approach to my investigation as: I'm "a f*cking looser" [sic]; a "crazed hack", and a "small small man", who knows nothing [all from RB], and rely on the back-up from Recruiter, Sneakers and one or two others on here to douse the flames. But Recruiter says the reason WG runs off 105 is because he is incredibly fit; so we can instantly discount pretty much everything he says. Even WG's most ardent fans are going for tech fail.
But if one looks closely at this thread, the support I have is very strong and heightens by the day, with the more stunts they pull and the more he accelerates.
Fair enough point WC, and thanks for the updated analysis. As this goes on and the finish line for WG draws ever closer, how do you see this ending/unfolding? Do we think we will ever get to the bottom of it? The truth? Will it just be another event in WGs chamber? I am torn between his suspect HR data and the integrity of at least some of his crew and the fact that so far, how he has knocked out so many ridiculously low HR miles has not been discovered/proved.
I have been compiling my own list of oddities. Oddities of both the event itself and the subsequent analysis by WC and others. I might share that another time. In the meantime - to answer the question of How do I see it playing out? 1) John Lees 53 days remains the benchmark for fastest Englishman. 2). Funds raised during the run fall short of $620,000. 3) Most of this will be forgotten in a few weeks. The caveat I'd make here is the post event production. I think when Iron Cowboy finished his 50/50/50 most in the Ironman World (I'm 17x finisher BTW) thought he may have done it. Once the documentary was on Netflix many said "well - an eliptical machine isn't running so he really didn't do this". I could see the WG team making the same mistake. We'll see.
They are basing their entire approach to my investigation as: I'm "a f*cking looser" [sic]; a "crazed hack", and a "small small man", who knows nothing [all from RB], and rely on the back-up from Recruiter, Sneakers and one or two others on here to douse the flames. But Recruiter says the reason WG runs off 105 is because he is incredibly fit; so we can instantly discount pretty much everything he says. Even WG's most ardent fans are going for tech fail.
I, for one, do not think you are any of those state above. I just believe that you've gone small minded on your thought process, and are continuing with the witch hunt and only listening to views that follow your narrative.
Hmm, did I say that he is running a 105 simply because he is incredibly fit. No, I stated hee was incredibly fit. I stated that when I ran with him, he was running an easy pace and was barely breaking a sweat. When someone, anyone, runs at an easy pace, their HR is going to be lower.
I am not dismissing you as you are trying to do to me. You are attempting to imply that if anyone says something that you don't believe or like that they should be dismissed. That is a sad sad way to live.
You are about heart rate data. Are you the first person to try to take down someone based on HR on here? If that is the new norm, I guess no TC or JOGLE run will be considered valid unless they are wearing a heartrate strap that has been validated by you first.
Do you leave your home doors unlocked when you’re not there? If you lock your doors, why not a little faith in people?
Fair point. I don't believe everyone is good, just as I don't believe everyone is bad.
Do you believe every stat put in front of you? Do you believe every negative statement said about you or others? Do you believe people are lying unless they prove to you they aren't?
Why don't you have a little faith as well my friend?
Well said. What we’re basically talking about is how to determine whether or not to believe what someone says is true. For me, believability comes down to three factors: the plausibility of the claim, the credibility of the person, and the quality of the evidence. The more extraordinary the claim is, the higher the burden of proof and credibility of the person is required for me to believe.
Example: If my friend Jason tells me he ran a 2:45 marathon, I would believe him because I know he’s a good enough runner to do that, and lots of people run 2:45 marathons. I wouldn’t even ask him for evidence. If, on the other hand, Jason told me he broke Kipchoge’s marathon world record, I would tell Jason he’s full of crap. If he insisted he really broke the record, then I would ask him to prove it. If he provided evidence, then I would assess the quality of the evidence.
So now let’s apply the three factors of believability to Goodge.
Plausibility of the claim: A transcon is an extraordinary feat, no matter the pace. Doing it at or near a record breaking pace? Even more extraordinary. Whoever is claiming to do that better be a great runner and have incontrovertible proof.
Credibility of the person: Goodge is an ordinary runner with modest PBs. On top of that, he’s an established liar who lied about breaking the consecutive marathon record discussed many pages ago on this thread. He’s also using this run to sell what appears to be a snake oil product, which further lowers his credibility. Plus both he and his mate Balenger appear to be attention-seeking narcissists who try to make themselves appear to be better athletes than they really are.
Quality of the evidence: Sorely lacking! It’s not just the irregularities in heart rate and pace that Will C has painstakingly outlined for us. It’s the irregularities plus the lack of a tracking device on his person, plus the lack of ongoing monitoring, plus the lack of camera footage.
So we have an extraordinary claim made by a non-credible person who has weak evidence. I don’t believe him.
No, I am not only about HR data, I am also about pace, form, ability, precedent, splits, credibility, tracking, topography, history, statistics and much more. Yes, I talk about HR a lot because none of it makes sense and it's so incredibly blatant - as in yesterday - the patterns are so perfectly consistent over the course of 4 years, by two runners, five or six watches, two continents, at very, VERY specific times and events totalling around 15,000kms.
I am just as much interested in the ludicrous splits he turns out, but that is an equally fiddly fish to fry because some just say, "well you never know, maybe he's an amazing runner." Like yourself. But we all know him to be anything but.
This conflict is about the merging of HR and pace. Neither ring remotely true or real whatsoever.
They are basing their entire approach to my investigation as: I'm "a f*cking looser" [sic]; a "crazed hack", and a "small small man", who knows nothing [all from RB], and rely on the back-up from Recruiter, Sneakers and one or two others on here to douse the flames. But Recruiter says the reason WG runs off 105 is because he is incredibly fit; so we can instantly discount pretty much everything he says. Even WG's most ardent fans are going for tech fail.
If that is the new norm, I guess no TC or JOGLE run will be considered valid unless they are wearing a heartrate strap
tbh that seems like the minimum price of entry when you're claiming to set a transcon record.
tbh that seems like the minimum price of entry when you're claiming to set a transcon record.
So let it be known that for here forward, any TC record attempt must have an approved HR monitor vetted by WC himself.
Now, will this be a LetsRun branded HR strap? 😁
As you can imagine, that would be pretty absurd. There is no rule book for this. There are no set of standards that must be followed, that is unless you're going for a Guinness record and then you have to follow their rules (don't make WC go down that path again...). If someone wants to say they are going for the TC of lefthanded British females under 5'7", they should be allowed to say it. That's called confidence. There have many yea-buts on here...he should have the tracker on him, he should wear a chest strap...he shouldn't cover his head...he shouldn't be sponsored...he shouldn't have such a well funded crew. His run=his choices.
tbh that seems like the minimum price of entry when you're claiming to set a transcon record.
So let it be known that for here forward, any TC record attempt must have an approved HR monitor vetted by WC himself.
Now, will this be a LetsRun branded HR strap? 😁
As you can imagine, that would be pretty absurd. There is no rule book for this. There are no set of standards that must be followed, that is unless you're going for a Guinness record and then you have to follow their rules (don't make WC go down that path again...). If someone wants to say they are going for the TC of lefthanded British females under 5'7", they should be allowed to say it. That's called confidence. There have many yea-buts on here...he should have the tracker on him, he should wear a chest strap...he shouldn't cover his head...he shouldn't be sponsored...he shouldn't have such a well funded crew. His run=his choices.
a chest strap is truly economical compared to a trailer and 2+ SAG vehicles. monumental claims require monumental proof.
WG has cast a specter of doubt on his achievement by his own doing. great for insta likes, bad for running.